Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India & Anr.

1. On the allegation that he had contracted a second marriage while his first marriage was subsisting, the petitioner, who was working as a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force[1] was subjected to a disciplinary enquiry, culminating in his dismissal from service for having infracted Rule 182 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules 2001[3]. “CISF”, hereinafter

18. Disqualification - No person, - (a) who has entered into or contracted a marriage with a person having a spouse living; or (b) who, having a spouse living, has entered into or contracted a marriage with another person, shall be eligible for appointment to the Force; Provided that the Central Government may, if satisfied that such marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable to such person and the other party to the marriage and there are other grounds for so doing, exempt any person from the operation of this rule.

2. The fact that, during the subsistence of his first marriage, the petitioner contracted his second marriage, cannot be disputed. The petitioner merely seeks to contend that the first marriage was dissolved by signature of a marriage dissolution deed dated 15 October 2017 before “social people and witnesses”. Needless to say, a duly solemnized Hindu marriage cannot be dissolved in such a fashion.

3. Though Rule 18 of the CISF Rules would seem to indicate that the disqualification from contracting a second marriage when the first marriage is subsisting applies only at the stage of appointment to the Force, a Division Bench of this Court, in its judgement in Ex. Head Constable Bazir Singh v UOI[4], held thus, in the context of Rule 75 of the Border Security Force Rules:

“the CISF Rules” hereinafter Judgement dated 2 May 2008 in WP (C) 8949/2005

7. Disqualification.—No person,- (a) who has entered into or contracted a marriage with a person having a spouse living, or (b) who, having a spouse living, has entered into or contracted a marriage with any person, shall be eligible for appointment in the force. Provided that the Central Government may, if satisfied, that such marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable to such person and the other party to the marriage and that there are other grounds for so doing, exempt any person from the operation of this rule. after his appointment as well. When an employee so, he would be rendered ineligible to continue in the employment, as that is the basic eligibility condition for the appointment itself.” Judgements of coordinate Benches are ordinarily binding precedents[6], with the limited leeway of allowing a reference to a larger Bench, in the event that the judgement is found to be completely unacceptable. That, however, is a course of action which is not to be routinely adopted, so that the confidence of the citizen in the judicial institution, and the interests of consistency, are protected.

4. Besides, the Special Leave Petition preferred against the judgement in Bazir Singh was also dismissed by the Supreme Court.

5. Clearly, therefore, Rule 18 of the CISF Rules would also cover the case in which a second marriage is contracted by the employee after he/she joined service.

6. On merits, there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner contracted the second marriage while her husband’s first marriage was subsisting. The only contention advanced is that the first marriage had been dissolved by signing of a marriage dissolution deed before the persons of the village. We are unaware of any law or principle by which a duly solemnized Hindu marriage can be dissolved by signing a marriage dissolution deed in front of village persons.

7. Clearly, therefore, on merits, the petitioner has no defence. Mary Pushpam v Telvi Cursumary, (2024) 3 SCC 224

8. The case is fully covered by the judgment of the Division Bench in Bazir Singh.

9. We noted the fact that in Bazir Singh, the punishment imposed was of compulsory retirement. Unfortunately, we cannot even reduce the punishment awarded on the petitioner as he has not rendered the qualifying service for compulsory retirement.

10. We are, therefore, unable to come to the aid of the petitioner.

11. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.